CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, IV

 

The last couple of postings looked at and critiqued the way the natural rights’ preferred approach to the study of governance and politics is done.  The postings explained how the construct constrained the way decision-making in governing and politicking is analyzed by limiting its focus to transactional factors.  By doing so, resulting studies are steered away from normative concerns. 

In turn, this gives, overall, a certain market orientation to such studies that takes on a cynicism of republican governance.  While the last posting describes this cynicism, one can look at its causes a bit more closely.  Given the construct’s emphasis on individualism, a contradictory pair of sub views emerges. 

One promotes a near zealotry of individual rights[1] and yet the other a near mechanistic view of decision making in which individuals simply go through weighing the values of anticipated rewards and costs.  Earlier in this blog, this was described as deterministic in that these episodes might be seen as robotic responses to decision making challenges. 

          Recall that the perspective “sanctifies” the right of individuals to pursue their own goals and values in the political and social arenas and then adopts this fairly deterministic view of how those choices are exercised.  The adoption of behaviorist strategies in organizations and in marketing deems human choices highly susceptible to the use of rewards and occasional punishments to solicit desired responses. 

The contradiction reminds one of an entrepreneurial defense of consumer rights of choice in the marketplace while the use of market research techniques not only discern consumer preferences, but also discern methods of manipulating consumer behavior.  The use of behavioristic and other psychological techniques can be readily cited.

For example, Neil Postman writes, “By the turn of the century [from nineteenth to the twentieth], advertisers no longer assumed rationality on the part of their potential customers.  Advertising became one part depth psychology, one part aesthetic theory.  Reason had to move to other arenas.”[2]  In similar fashion, advocates of the natural rights perspective seem to shift easily from their staunch support for individual rights to analyzing the exercise of those rights as if they were mechanistic operations.

It does this without any explanation as to the seeming inconsistency.  As close as they come is to mention that they are not crude behaviorists because they acknowledge that what are making these decisions are “organisms” and that they are affected by many factors such as cultural ones.[3]  And yet another concern along these lines is how the systems approach treats aspects of its analyses as separate components which can be manipulated, albeit with care.

Human problems in decision making are often seen as situations that either are missing certain components, that a component needs upgrading, or a component needs to be shifted.  Consequently, solutions are aimed not at fundamental causes, but as symptoms which are addressed by these types of component manipulations.  Again, this type of approach to decision making lends itself to marginal analysis. 

The problem is that true solutions, because of this incomplete approach, oftentimes elude practitioners.  In addition, marginal analysis and manipulation encourage a “cold” emotional perspective.  Problems are seen as technical concerns, not personal ones.  Consequently, when dealing with others, negotiations and compromises can include, more readily, any aspect of the problem area without fully appreciating emotional qualities of those concerns or elements.

This whole approach, therefore, runs the real danger of compromising any aspect, even those judged to be highly moral ones.  If those moral concerns include commitments in which communal bonds are anchored, then mistrust and cynicism become highly likely.  Recent labor negotiations and resulting consequential decisions – e.g., downsizing in previous decades come to mind[4] – are exemplary of these decisions.  To add to this, long term consequences seem to be either downgraded or ignored completely.

And this leads one to consider the quality of the grouping or collective one is considering with a given concern.  The natural rights view, with its emphasis on individuals, tends to steer one’s attention only to individuals.  Yet, and this is commonsensical, it is group decisions that have the most effect on any area of concern that has impact on people.  The next posting will take up this concern for groups (in whichever ways they are organized), but before ending this posting, here is a quick mention of another concern with the natural rights view.

In an expanded version of political systems, one that encompasses the concerns over requisite functions offered by Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, there is nothing inherently definitive about the functions identified in the Almond and Powell’s model.[5]  William Flanigan and Edwin Fogelman[6] point out that there is nothing sacred with that list of functions – those that political systems need to satisfy so as to maintain a healthy state of being or to even survive – that Almond and Powell point out.  There are other theorists, both the fields of sociology and political science, who have different lists garnering respect and interest in those disciplines.[7]

          The Almond and Powell model was chosen in this account because of how smoothly one can utilize it in terms of David Easton’s political systems model.[8]  This is not a fundamental criticism – one can study governance and politics, especially in the US, with the Almond and Powell model – but this is a point of contention that should be mentioned in regard to the construct’s reliability or for its isomorphic quality. 

---

[1] For a recent published concern over a singular priority of individual rights regarding more communal concerns of obligations and duties, see Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations:  The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2023).

[2] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business  (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 1986), 60.

[3] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of ‘Behavioralism,’” in Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James Clyde Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press, 1967), 11-31.

[4] A SHRM online posting reports the following:  “Downsizing can take a toll on workforce morale; employees may feel betrayed. Long-term consequences of altering the work environment include increased voluntary turnover and decreased innovation.” “Managing Employee in a Downing Environment,” Society for Human Resource Management (n.d.), accessed February 15, 2023, https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managinginadownsizedenvironment.aspx#:~:text=Downsizing%20can%20take%20a%20toll,voluntary%20turnover%20and%20decreased%20innovation.

[5] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown. 1966). 

[6] William Flanigan and Edwin Fogelman, “Functional Analysis,” in Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James Clyde Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press, 1967), 72-85.

[7] The list of functions Almond and Powell include are rulemaking, rule-application, rule-adjudication (these first three align themselves perfectly with the three branches of government), interest articulation (the main work of organized interest groups), and interest aggregation (the main work of political parties).  Together, these last two functions can be considered the input functions of the political system.  During the time that Almond and Powell’s work took hold, the social sciences, led by sociology, were highlighting functions.  Historically, that emphasis was the product of a tradition begun in the late 1800s.  See the works of Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, Robert Merton and especially, Talcott Parsons.  While not all theorists agree on the same list of functions, overall, such theorizing expressed the fundamental concern regarding the stability of social arrangements, including governments.

[8] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953) AND David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965).

CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, III

 

The last posting touched on the cleanliness of political systems thinking – its theorizing – in which researchers tend to bank on the rational assumption.  That is, by focusing on decision-making, the natural rights perspective can be boiled down at various levels to individuals calculating marginal cost and marginal benefits and choosing which option promises to render the highest profit or the least loss. 

While this is a powerful notion and often is sufficient in understanding human behavior, it undermines what all goes on among people when confronted with opportunities or dilemmas.  Philip Selznick picks up on this theme and argues that modern thinking about this aspect of life has become more systems oriented.  He writes that the ensuing rationality has an effect on how people measure each other  and their expectations:

 

[In traditional society,] The rationality of the lifeworld is oriented toward mutual understanding … not success.  Human interaction becomes more rational as people come to know each other’s premises; as they properly interpret meanings and motivations; as they use the resources of a shared language for criticism, dialogue, and agreement.  The rationality that looks to success or goal-seeking [in modern societies] employs other resources and a different logic.  Instead of relying on human communication and natural language, which are inherently disorderly, fuzzy, and connotative, rationality is sought in artificial languages.  These include the abstraction of money and obedience.  In engineered and programmed systems, the process of Verstandigung, of working toward mutual understanding and rational consensus, are [sic] swept out as unwelcome distractions.[1]

                                                   

          The problem is that certain benefits and rewards, or the standards that establish conditions as benefits and rewards, are beyond measure and money.  What parent would sell his or her child into slavery?  What amount of money would one need to give up a way of life, a religious belief, or worship?  For many, there is no amount.  And when political behavior is based on these kinds of considerations, a political systems approach fails to account for or understand the ensuing behavior.

          By way of example, a look at political decision-making by politicians can be instructive.  Game theory analysts use the analytical tool – the prisoner’s dilemma[2] – to explain how a representative in Congress would “irrationally” address a problem such as the national debt.

            Given that a representative might go to Washington with the intent to work toward eliminating expenditures on wasteful programs, that politician soon faces a dilemma.  If the representative votes for eliminating all waste, he/she manages to antagonize those interests in the home district that would benefit from the expenditures locally. 

To win the campaign to eliminate the national debt, this congressperson must convince the majority in Congress to follow his/her example.  Whether the representative is successful in this latter effort, the lawmaker will not be reelected because it is those interests, the ones that were put off by fighting the problem, that make the financial contributions that lead to successful election campaigns.  In addition to not supporting the waste elimination congressperson, the interests will act aggressively to replace this crusader. 

As for the rest of the population, their benefits are too diffused to overcome the costs of supporting the good legislator by either making campaign contributions, working for the campaign, or even, for too many, voting.  So, the championing legislator can look forward to one term, and since all congresspeople face the same conditions, it will be very likely a majority of the Congress will respond with no action on this issue.

          If, on the other hand, the congressperson votes for locally favored expenditures of federal dollars that add to the national debt and might be wasteful, the would-be crusader is likely to win the local affected interest’s active support.  If the majority of the House votes to eliminate waste, the somewhat hypocritical representative can feel the satisfaction of seeing the original desired result take place.  If the majority does not, a much more likely result, at least the featured legislator can get reelected and return to fight another day.

          Of course, if one adds to the mix the practice of log rolling, in which one representative votes for other district spending in exchange for spending in that representative’s district, the likelihood of ever eliminating waste in government spending seems systematically impossible.  Marginal thinking, in other words, can lead to conditions generally not desired by the majority of a republic.[3]

          Need one hold such a cynical view of republican governance?  Only if the system or the polity cannot engender, on the part of the citizenry, other goals and values than those based on financial or, as Selznick points out, command motives.  If other values and goals, perhaps those that emanate from communal bonds, are encouraged and promoted, could these be strong enough to make the support of this or any conscientious legislator rational?

          Such goals and values might verge on formulating and socializing a social morality.  This critique postulates that such goals and values can be developed and maintained.  Without such a possibility, which is outside the realm of concern of the natural rights perspective, one is left with the cynical conclusion that a republic cannot have the discipline to develop policy that entails sacrifice, even when the majority favors such efforts.

          Of course, a review of successful legislative ideas and ideals might demonstrate to readers that this lack of fortitude describes the system more accurately than one that entertains the possibility of conscientious politicians.  Yet the history of the nation does include a series of beneficial legislation.  While nirvana has not been reached, how many readers are willing to move elsewhere or give up on the system?  After all, this blogger has heard that he should not ask what America can do for him, but what he can do for America.

---

[1] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992), 255.

[2] “The prisoner’s dilemma presents a situation in which two parties, separated and unable to communicate, must choose between cooperating with the other or not. The highest reward for each party occurs when both parties choose to co-operate.”  See “What Is the Prisoner’s Dilemma and How Does It Work?,” Investopedia (August 4, 2022), accessed February 12, 2023), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp#:~:text=Understanding%20the%20Prisoner's%20Dilemma&text=The%20prisoner's%20dilemma%20presents%20a,parties%20choose%20to%20co%2Doperate.

[3] “Special Interest Politics,” OER Services/OS Microeconomics 2e (n.d.), accessed February 11, 2023, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microeconomics2/chapter/special-interest-politics/ AND Paul Heyne, The Economic Way of Thinking (Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall, 1997/ with Peter J. Boettke & David L. Prychitko – Tenth Edition – 2002).

CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, II

 

With the last posting, this blog has resumed its posting schedule of Tuesdays and Fridays.  With this posting, the blog picks up its critique of the natural rights view.  As a quick review, the natural rights mental construct is the dominant view of governance and politics in the US.  In the last posting (the first after a three-month break), this critique was introduced by outlining a list of points it will develop. 

 The first was:

 

The construct has a limited view of decision-making.  This is important because the construct’s position on decision-making is narrowed to transactional aspects of governance and politics.  The position on decision-making serves as one of the construct’s basic operating assumptions.

 

Let this posting describe and explain this shortcoming. 

A political systems model is an extensive and comprehensive view of the political life one finds in a nation.  As the mode by which the natural rights view encourages students to go about studying politics, it is exceedingly useful if a student makes an assumption that there are extensively shared goals and values within the political system.  If these exist, then a further assumption or prior condition is possible.

          In such a nation, behavioral studies’ reliance on people being apt to make rational decisions will be the normal course of decision-making.  That is, when people are confronted with a decision, they will basically ask themselves what choice affords them the most benefit for the least cost.  Choices will be made toward those possibilities in which the marginal benefits exceed marginal costs.

            For example, should one turn on the TV?  Does what is on TV accrue more benefit than expending the energy to turn the set on or to do something else?  Of course, calculations come into play as to the possibilities for benefits and costs with alternative choices in an uncertain world.

This analysis can be highly involved, but the mind handles the calculations fairly efficiently given the complexity of the choice and the information a person has at the time of the decision.  But in any event, certain stable conditions need to prevail for this type of calculation to be possible and should be considered.

          So, how is this relevant?  Theoretical work in the field of political studies which has been based on these considerations is advanced by Anthony Downs.[1]  In his writing, the concern is focused on the role the above mentioned marginal or rational thinking has in political systems study.  The judgement here is that the rational assumption is a basic one for those students who employ the political systems approach.  Or if one wishes to delve a bit further, what is assumed are those elements of a political culture to be present and viable when such decisions are being made.[2]

          Daniel Moynihan shares this view:  “… American social science had pretty much settled on a utilitarian model in which behavior is explained by expectation of things yet to happen.  Rewards and punishments.”[3]  This critique is not that political systems and other derived models are crude behavioral efforts – all of them have taken pains to address other factors beyond rewards and costs – but the biases toward that sort of calculation are entrenched in systems theorizing and in their derived research. 

And therefore, their concerns for the formulation of goals and values – normative factors – seem wanting.  This is so if one considers that there are two sides to decision-making.  One side is the way the individuals see the benefits and costs before them, and the other is the development of the goals and values that establish what is judged to be beneficial and costly. 

This latter part of decision-making is mostly ignored in the political systems approach to the study of politics.  In most analyses, these aspects are taken as given, yet this critique deems these concerns essential if understanding and predictability are the ultimate goals of any given study.  The approach, by so assuming, adds to its reductionist tendency of only taking those factors immediately present when such decision-making takes place.

Money plays a role in these considerations.  Money is not an end in itself.  It is converted into many different things and conditions of life.  When one says, “it’s only money,” one does not do money justice.  Money can mean peace of mind or a child’s health.  It can convert into recreation or education.  It can mean an untold number of things.  As such, it can represent goals and values.

To add to this situation, money can be counted in equal units.  Therefore, there is a tendency for money to create an illusion.  The illusion is that money can represent goals and values.  It can be seen in different guises as a won contract or a promotion at work.  Money then seems to be the universal goal or value.  In capitalist economies, the attainment of money seems to permeate all aspects of life.  Sports, religion, and education seem to be measured in monetary terms. 

But upon reflection, people know that not all is for sale or measurable by a monetary value.  The significance of this is that systems’ view of counting on benefits and costs is further entrenched by the role of money.  Not only are all people after money, or so the assumption goes, but one can measure how much money – reward or benefit – it takes to get people to do something.  There is a certain theoretical cleanliness about this view.

In short, what is being suggested is that human behavior, much less human thinking, emoting, planning, and other non-observable human “actions” are highly complex and involved and that doesn’t even consider what is at the subconscious level.  This posting ends with this introduction to decision-making and will continue with this point of contention in the next posting with a quote by Philip Selznick.

---

[1] Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York, NY:  Harper and Row Publisher, 1957).

[2] See Jurgen R. Winkler, “Political Culture,” Britannica (n.d.), accessed February 9, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-culture.   Winkler writes,

American political scientist Lucian Pye defined political culture as the composite of basic values, feelings, and knowledge that underlie the political process. Hence, the building blocks of political culture are the beliefs, opinions, and emotions of the citizens toward their form of government.

            … The classic study of political culture is The Civic Culture (1963) by American political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba.

He goes on to point out that some studies look closer at subcultures within nations, but the effect is the same; it provides the landscapes by which decision-making can proceed as described here.

[3] Daniel P. Moynihan, Pandemonia:  Ethnicity in International Politics (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1993), 30.

CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, I

 

[Note:  As regular and ongoing readers of this blog might know, this blogger has since November 1, 2022 taken a break.  This is in line with the history of this blog; the blogger has taken a break after every four hundred postings.  He did so after 400, 800, and 1200 postings.  It’s time to pick up the blog with the next 400 offerings starting with this posting.  As of his counting, the posting below is number 1201.  This blogger’s initial plan is to resume the twice a week schedule in issuing new postings on Tuesdays and Fridays.  This is tentative in that he is dealing with other projects so he will see what can be maintained.  REMINDER: this blogger, Robert Gutierrez, has two published books, TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION & FROM IMMATURITY TO POLARIZED POLITICS.  The first offers a suggested future for civics education, and the second reports on what the obstacles to that future are.  These books are available online through Amazon and other booksellers.]

 

So, here this blog resumes, and its first topic is to critique the natural rights view of governance and politics.  When it comes to these concerns, that view has been dominant in the US since World War II and that dominance has grown in the ensuing years.  Actually, it has grown to such a degree that current writers, pundits, and scholars have been highlighting its influence more and more.  They might not use the term natural rights, but the concern over a lack of citizens expressing and behaving themselves with a sense of obligation and duty has become recurring in the national media.

          One such effort, a book, is by Richard Haass entitled The Bill of Obligations:  The Ten Habits of Good Citizenship.[1]  The focus of that book is how Americans have become deficient in terms of even identifying the need for having such obligations and duties.  He writes that due to that deficiency the following has resulted,

 

The most urgent and significant threat to American security and stability stems not from abroad but from within, from political divisions that for only the second time in U.S. history have raised questions about the future of American democracy and even the United States itself.[2]

 

It is the position of this blog that the dominance of the natural rights view is the prime factor that has led to this state of affairs.

          While this blogger considers himself as a guarded, limited supporter of the natural rights view, he believes, overall, as apparently Haass does, that that view, as a dominant one, is highly detrimental to the health of the national commonwealth.  This posting begins a critique of that view in which this blogger will outline the detrimental effects the natural rights view has had on the health of the nation’s governance and politics.

          That is, while the overall usefulness of this construct is acknowledged, the perspective is judged to have serious and even dysfunctional elements.  This and the following postings review the negative aspects of the perspective.  By way of previewing this critique’s content, the following points will be explained:

 

·       The construct has a limited view of decision-making.  This is important because the construct’s position on decision-making is narrowed to transactional aspects of governance and politics.  The position on decision-making serves as one of the construct’s basic operating assumptions.

·       The construct’s tie-in with the market view of political decision making presents a reality that is highly and unnecessarily cynical of republican governance.

·       There exists a contradictory argument within the natural rights perspective about the quality and sanctity of individual rights and the perspective’s mechanistic view of decision-making.

·       In its expanded version of the view’s account of the political system, one that encompasses the concerns over requisite functions offered by Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, there is nothing inherently definitive over the functions identified in the Almond and Powell’s model.[3]

·       Systems approaches, derived from the natural rights perspective to problem solving, produce fragmented, elemental strategies.  This implies that it is better to proceed politically under the pragmatic bargaining mode in negotiating solutions with conflicting parties.  That is, it is better not to have strongly held, emotional positions and one should be willing in all cases to compromise.  The result might be that nothing is beyond compromise.

·       Due to the overemphasis on individualism, as encouraged by the natural rights perspective, the organizing factions, as interest groups or political parties, have become more difficult to formulate among the general population – each while encouraged to compromise hold its interests as unassailable.  This is true because faction formulation and action presuppose compromise with others’ interests.  Since the system responds to factions, not individuals for the most part, cynicism results from the perceived lack of demand accommodations to individual participants.

·       While essentialism – as the encouraged educational philosophy – supports teacher (adult) authority, its glorification of market values has led to a consumer attitude toward schools.  Parents, along with their children, define schools as consumer suppliers and themselves as consumers, as opposed to partners in the educational process.

·       This construct does not adequately address how subgroups – racial, ethnic, aged, sexual oriented minorities – might not share generally in their legitimate standing within the polity.

·       And, of course, there is the excessive focus and promotion of individualism that undercuts American society from generating the adequate levels of community, cooperation, and collaboration.

 

And with that, this blog takes up with where it left off …

---

[1] Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations:  The Ten Habits of Good Citizenship (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2023).

[2] Ibid., xi.

[3] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown. 1966).

DIGRESSION II

 [Note:  As the reader might notice, this posting is being posted outside of the usual schedule this blog follows.  Regular postings of this blog has been suspended after its 1200 posting - this blogger takes a bread after every 400 posting.  He anticipates that regular posting will begin in February.  This posting is to update the first posting entitled "Digression."

Its purpose is to inform directed readers on how to gain access to supplemental readings to which this blogger’s published works refer, highlight, or otherwise cite.  This posting will be referred to in future postings and, in all likelihood, will be amplified as this blogger adds to his published book list.

Well, that has happened.  He now, along with his first book, Toward a Federated Nation, has a second published book, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics, and is included in the following listing.  

A reader who is wishing to read or look at one of the referred supplemental works need only click on the noted URL to gain access.  Lastly, there is a "book" of the first one hundred postings of this blog.  Its title is Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume I.  There is also one for the second hundred postings - announced for the first time here - Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume II.  Volume I and II are found online and their URLs are indicated below.

          By way of explaining this mode of access, this blogger believes typing the short URL to this blog site is not as burdensome as typing in the longer URLs that the listings below indicate.]

 

In the works of Robert Gutierrez there are references to online sites.  Those sites have supplemental information that further describes or explains what the works claim or argue.  If interested in these added information sources, a reader can scroll down this site, find the work he/she is reading, and then choose the specific site he/she is seeking.  For example, if the reader is reading Toward a Federated Nation and wants to read the supplemental entry regarding the Opioid Crisis, he/she only need to click – as indicated below – the following URL, https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8 .  That will allow the reader to gain access to the informational supplement entitled, “FACTOIDS AND INSIGHTS DESCRIBING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.”

 

Online sites listing factoids and insights of topics in Toward a Federated Nation

Submitted by Robert Gutierrez,

In the book, Toward a Federated Nation, a number of online sites are provided.  Each contains information relating to the various topics of that book.  Below is a listing of those sites’ URLs.  They are listed here for convenience.

Opioid Crisis

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8

 

History of Tort Cases

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11777&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AHB4SPIeFYPBjQY

 

Foreign Trade and Job Availability

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11686&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!ALoSywwk4uB2QlI

 

Foreign Currency Simulation

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11686&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!ALoSywwk4uB2QlI OR the PDF file, https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CED163627385DD3C&id=CED163627385DD3C%2117469&parId=CED163627385DD3C%21104&o=OneUp

 

In the book, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics, a number of online sites are provided.  Each contains information relating to the various topics in that book.  Below is a listing of those sites’ URLs.  They are listed here for convenience.

“How Effective is Civics Education?”

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11783&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AHFo6PFBnpUkePw

 

“(Online) Appendix Chapter:  The Influence of Political Science on Civics”

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSjZxpifP42VVnhFduKujgUDPJMddmcsh1uRY9DvpNicdYUONOHx56r1jRg4lgxK3ckaiQMJc4Gno0J/pub 

“The Magruder and Glencoe Case”

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSQxMfz-ILTNUq-qUXwCK-VjkQ55HWCY7lj6tCmAaaH53Z2B8jQfmhb_cfvaSbXr-4U6nQb1p4wdLJB/pub

AND

“The Natural Rights’ Effect on Civics Education"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n__yYGX1AE1zc96JQdaBiVM1JhPpcee6bZ9FHZoA42Y/view

As for the “book,” Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume I, that work is found at the site, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zh3nrZVGAhQDu1hB_q5Uvp8J_7rdN57-FQ6ki2zALpE/edit.

Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume II, that work is found at the site, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F7YzEOrxaqc97Imt83l90Li4eIGKPgAT-b2xKsHUj9w/edit .